This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-08-789 
entitled 'Safe Routes To School: Progress in Implementing the Program, 
but a Comprehensive Plan to Evaluate Program Outcomes Is Needed' which 
was released on July 31, 2008. 

This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part 
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every 
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of 
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text 
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the 
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided 
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed 
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic 
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail 
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this 
document to Webmaster@gao.gov. 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work 
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the 
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this 
material separately. 

Report to the Ranking Member, Committee on Environment and Public 
Works, U.S. Senate: 

United States Government Accountability Office: 

GAO: 

July 2008: 

Safe Routes To School: 

Progress in Implementing the Program, but a Comprehensive Plan to 
Evaluate Program Outcomes Is Needed: 

GAO-08-789: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-08-789, a report to the Ranking Member, Committee on 
Environment and Public Works, U.S. Senate. 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

In August 2005, Congress established the Safe Routes to School (SRTS) 
program primarily to encourage children to walk and bicycle to school. 
GAO was asked to determine (1) the steps the Federal Highway 
Administration (FHWA) and states have taken to implement the program, 
(2) the extent to which FHWA and states have evaluated the results of 
the program, and (3) how the program is related to other surface 
transportation programs and some considerations for future 
reauthorization. GAO reviewed statutes, regulations, and guidance; 
analyzed program obligation data and funds awarded by states; and 
interviewed officials with FHWA, state departments of transportation, 
and local grant recipients. 

What GAO Found: 

FHWA and the states have implemented key aspects of the SRTS program. 
FHWA established a clearinghouse to provide technical assistance for 
SRTS programs and a national task force to study and develop a strategy 
for advancing SRTS programs nationwide. It also provided an interim 
report to Congress on its progress and developed program guidance that 
provides states with flexibility in implementing their SRTS programs. 
Although state-level implementation varies, states have made progress 
in implementing the program. Approximately 2,700 schools nationwide are 
participating in the program. As of March 31, 2008, states obligated 
almost $75 million in SRTS funding or approximately 18 percent of the 
total amount apportioned by FHWA since September 2005. 

FHWA, in collaboration with the clearinghouse and the national task 
force, has taken significant steps to develop a framework for 
evaluating SRTS program outcomes, including developing standardized 
data collection forms. However, FHWA lacks a comprehensive plan to 
monitor and evaluate the full range of SRTS program outcomes. FHWA 
requests, but does not require states to develop and report information 
on program results. The Department of Transportation (DOT) could 
require states to develop and report such information by including 
language in its grant agreements. The Government Performance and 
Results Act requires agencies to measure performance toward the 
achievement of program goals and objectives. The clearinghouse has made 
an initial effort to talk with key stakeholders, including the Centers 
for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Environmental 
Protection Agency (EPA), about appropriate measures for health and 
environmental outcomes, but additional work is needed to determine the 
feasibility of developing these outcome measures. 

The SRTS program broadens the federal transportation role in that it 
addresses concerns about bicycle and pedestrian safety of students, 
childhood obesity and inactivity, and traffic and environmental 
problems in the vicinity of schools, rather than primarily addressing 
broader concerns about the condition of surface transportation 
infrastructure or highway safety. Also, we note that while most federal 
funds for federal highway projects require a 20 percent match from 
state and local governments, a 100 percent federal share is established 
for SRTS projects or activities. GAO has previously reported that 
grants with federal matching requirements may promote relatively more 
state and local spending than nonmatching grants. Finally, the SRTS 
program incorporates some of GAO’s principles for re-examining federal 
programs—such as sharing best practices—but the program has had more 
limited success in implementing performance accountability. 

What GAO Recommends: 

To enhance its oversight of the SRTS program, GAO is recommending that 
DOT (1) develop a comprehensive plan to monitor and evaluate the 
program and (2) formalize its efforts to work jointly with CDC and EPA 
in developing health and environmental outcome measures. To improve the 
effectiveness of the federal investment in the program, Congress should 
consider requiring a state or local match that will help encourage 
additional state and local investment in SRTS activities. DOT officials 
generally agreed with GAO’s findings and said they are considering the 
recommendations, and they provided technical clarifications, which are 
incorporated as appropriate. 

To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-08-789]. For more 
information, contact Katherine Siggerud at (202) 512-2834 or 
siggerudk@gao.gov. 

[End of section] 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Results in Brief: 

Background: 

FHWA and the States Have Taken Steps to Implement Key Aspects of the 
SRTS Program: 

Significant Evaluation Efforts Have Been Made, but FHWA and States Do 
Not Have a Comprehensive Plan to Evaluate the Program: 

SRTS Program Broadens Federal Transportation Role and Overlaps with 
Other Surface Transportation Programs, but Has Successfully Applied 
Some Criteria for Addressing 21st Century Challenges: 

Conclusions: 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

Matter for Congressional Consideration: 

Agency Comments: 

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology: 

Appendix II: SRTS Apportionments, by Fiscal Year: 

Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

Tables: 

Table 1: Status of FHWA's Implementation of Key SAFETEA-LU Requirements 
for SRTS: 

Table 2: State Progress in Implementing SRTS Programs through March 31, 
2008: 

Table 3: Total SRTS Funding Awarded by States, by Fiscal Year: 

Table 4: Total SRTS Funding Apportioned, Obligated, Unobligated, and 
Obligation Rate, by Fiscal Year: 

Table 5: Description of Selected Program Outcomes Identified by 
National Stakeholders: 

Table 6: Selected Federal SRTS Activities to Date in Visited States and 
Local Grant Recipients: 

Table 7: Key Challenges to Program Implementation and Overall Program 
Effectiveness Identified by National, State, and Local Stakeholders: 

Figures: 

Figure 1: Program Administration Characteristics of States We Visited 
or Interviewed: 

Figure 2: Picture of Speed Feedback Sign: 

Abbreviations: 

CDC: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: 

DOT: Department of Transportation: 

EPA: Environmental Protection Agency: 

FACA: Federal Advisory Committee Act: 

FHWA: Federal Highway Administration: 

NHTSA: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration: 

SAFETEA-LU: Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation 
Equity Act: A Legacy for Users: 

SRTS: Safe Routes to School: 

SR2S: California State-Legislated Safe Routes to School Program: 

United States Government Accountability Office: 

Washington, DC 20548: 

July 31, 2008: 

The Honorable James Inhofe: 
Ranking Member: 
Committee on Environment and Public Works: 
United States Senate: 

Dear Senator Inhofe: 

The 2005 Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity 
Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) established the federal Safe 
Routes to School (SRTS) program, the first Federal Highway 
Administration (FHWA) program designed primarily to encourage children 
to walk and bicycle to school. According to FHWA, in 1969, 
approximately 50 percent of U.S. children walked or rode bicycles to 
school, but by 2001, only about 15 percent of students did so. 
Additionally, the Department of Health and Human Services estimates 
that 20 percent of children and youth in the United States will be 
obese by 2010. Moreover, data from local communities show that 
approximately 20 percent of morning traffic can be generated by parents 
driving their children to school, and according to the National Highway 
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), in 2005, motor vehicle traffic 
crashes were the leading cause of death for children ages 3 through 6 
and 8 and over. Although the National Research Council's Transportation 
Research Board reports that transportation by school bus is the safest 
mode of school travel, it has also suggested that steps can be taken to 
improve the safety of students who walk or bicycle to school. 

Congress mandated the establishment of the SRTS program in August 2005 
to enable and encourage children, including those with disabilities, to 
walk and bicycle to school; make bicycling and walking to school a 
safer and more appealing transportation alternative, thereby 
encouraging a healthy and active lifestyle from an early age; and 
facilitate the planning, development, and implementation of projects 
and activities that will improve safety and reduce traffic, fuel 
consumption, and air pollution in the vicinity of schools. FHWA is 
responsible for administering the program,[Footnote 1] which provides 
$612 million over 5 years to state Departments of Transportation to 
implement state SRTS programs and for infrastructure and 
noninfrastructure projects benefiting school children in kindergarten 
through eighth grade.[Footnote 2] States are responsible for developing 
their own program administration structure and process for soliciting 
and selecting SRTS projects and activities.[Footnote 3] As you 
requested, this report discusses (1) the steps FHWA and states[Footnote 
4] have taken to implement the SRTS program, (2) the extent to which 
FHWA and states have evaluated the results of the SRTS program, and (3) 
how the SRTS program is related to other surface transportation 
programs and some considerations for the future reauthorization of 
funding for the SRTS and other surface transportation programs. 

To address the first two objectives related to the SRTS program 
implementation and evaluation, we reviewed the legislative history of 
the federal SRTS program and conducted a literature review of key 
health, safety, and environmental concerns the program is intended to 
address, including the relative risks of the available options for 
transporting children to and from school. We reviewed and analyzed key 
documents and data, including FHWA program guidance, the draft report 
from the National Safe Routes to School Task Force (i.e., the national 
task force), FHWA's reports that track obligated SRTS funds,[Footnote 
5] SRTS tracking reports from the National Center for Safe Routes to 
Schools (i.e., the clearinghouse) that contain information on SRTS 
amounts awarded by states[Footnote 6] and the number of participating 
schools, and other information on the program. To assess the 
reliability of FHWA's data on SRTS funding apportionments and 
obligations and the data in the tracking reports from the 
clearinghouse, we reviewed related documentation and interviewed 
knowledgeable agency officials about the quality of the data. As a 
result, we determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for the 
purposes of this report. In addition, we interviewed officials from 
FHWA; the clearinghouse; the national task force; and numerous national 
stakeholders familiar with health, safety, and environmental concerns 
and SRTS program design and implementation at the national level. 
Finally, we conducted four site visits--involving three states 
(California, Florida, and South Dakota) and the District of 
Columbia[Footnote 7]--where we interviewed FHWA division officials, 
state officials, local grant recipients, and state and local level 
stakeholders and collected in-depth information to obtain views on the 
program's design, implementation, and results to date as applicable. To 
select states, we reviewed data on the coordinator status, application 
cycles, and number of local SRTS projects funded as of June 2007. To 
address the third objective regarding how the SRTS program relates to 
other surface transportation programs and some considerations for 
reauthorization, we assessed the extent to which the SRTS program has 
addressed several of the criteria and principles that we have developed 
in our prior work--including our reports on 21st century challenges-- 
for re-examining government transportation programs. A more detailed 
discussion of our scope and methodology appears in appendix I. 

We performed our review from August 2007 to July 2008 in accordance 
with generally accepted governmental auditing standards. Those 
standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that 
the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 
conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

Results in Brief: 

FHWA and the states have taken steps to implement the key aspects of 
the SRTS program and states have made some progress in awarding grants. 
As required by SAFETEA-LU, FHWA has established a clearinghouse to 
develop and disseminate information and provide technical assistance 
for state and local SRTS programs and a national task force to study 
and develop a strategy for advancing state and local SRTS programs 
nationwide. It has also provided an interim report to Congress on its 
progress and developed program guidance that provides states with 
flexibility in implementing their SRTS programs. Although state-level 
implementation varies, states have made progress in implementing the 
program. For example, all states have SRTS program coordinators, all 
but one state has started the process of awarding funds to grantees, 
and approximately 2,700 schools nationwide are participating in the 
program. In addition, the states awarded grants totaling about $222 
million or 53 percent of SRTS funding apportioned by FHWA through March 
31, 2008. With respect to spending these funds, states must take 
several steps before obligating awarded funds. As of March 31, 2008, 
states obligated almost $75 million in SRTS funding or approximately 18 
percent of the total amount apportioned by FHWA since the first 
apportionment in September 2005. In awarding SRTS grants, states have 
funded activities such as sidewalk installation, sidewalk gap closures, 
bicycle and pedestrian education programs, and increased traffic 
enforcement in school zones. 

FHWA, in collaboration with the clearinghouse and the national task 
force, has taken significant steps to develop a framework for 
evaluating SRTS program outcomes, including developing standardized 
data collection forms and a six-step process to assist state and local 
SRTS programs in preparing evaluation plans. However, these efforts 
focus on measuring program participation and potential safety outcomes 
and, therefore, do not fully address the evaluation of the multiple 
program purposes and potential outcomes of SRTS. FHWA recommends that 
states evaluate their SRTS programs, but it does not require them to do 
so. FHWA's program guidance requests that states gather and provide 
information to FHWA on the evaluation of safety benefits, behavioral 
changes, and other potential benefits including improved student 
health, improved air quality, decreased traffic congestion, and others. 
According to FHWA officials, they did not require states to evaluate 
their SRTS programs because they believed they lacked the statutory 
authority to do so. Nevertheless, we believe that the Department of 
Transportation (DOT) may require states to collect and report data 
relevant for evaluating the program and include that requirement in its 
agreements with grantees. The authority to make a grant implies 
authority to do those things that are reasonably required to administer 
the grant, including the duty to ensure that the grant funds are 
effectively used to carry out the purpose of the grant. This duty, in 
turn, may require the collection of data to measure performance. The 
Government Performance Results Act requires agencies to measure 
performance toward the achievement of program goals and objectives. 
Performance data allow agencies to share effective approaches, 
recognize problems, look for solutions, and develop ways to improve 
results. While it may be too early in the program to determine whether 
the voluntary nature of SRTS's evaluation component will provide a 
comprehensive picture of national SRTS results, officials from both 
FHWA and the clearinghouse told us they do not believe that the lack of 
an evaluation requirement will hinder evaluation efforts. Some 
stakeholders, however, raised concerns about the lack of an evaluation 
requirement. For example, the director of the Safe Routes to School 
National Partnership--a network of nonprofit organizations, government 
agencies, schools, and professionals working to advance the SRTS 
movement in the United States--told us that gauging the performance of 
a $612 million program is important and will require data and analysis. 
While FHWA's guidance recommends that states gather and provide 
information on potential health and environmental outcomes, FHWA and 
the clearinghouse have not developed guidance and tools that states and 
local programs could use to assess those outcomes. The clearinghouse's 
director said the clearinghouse has engaged in initial discussions with 
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) about developing appropriate 
outcome measures. Finally, program outcomes to date are limited, in 
part, because the SRTS program is in its early stages of 
implementation, but entities we interviewed were able to identify 
challenges to program implementation and program effectiveness. To 
improve DOT's ability to evaluate SRTS program outcomes, we are 
recommending that DOT (1) develop a comprehensive plan to monitor and 
evaluate the SRTS program and (2) formalize its efforts to work jointly 
with the clearinghouse, CDC, and EPA to explore the feasibility of 
developing health and environmental outcome measures. DOT is 
considering these recommendations. 

The SRTS program broadens the federal transportation role in that it is 
the first[Footnote 8] surface transportation program designed to 
address concerns about bicycle and pedestrian safety of children 
traveling to and from school, childhood obesity and inactivity, and 
traffic and environmental problems in the vicinity of schools, rather 
than primarily to address broader concerns about the condition of 
surface transportation infrastructure or highway safety. SRTS funding 
constitutes less than 1 percent of total highway funding authorized by 
SAFETEA-LU, although some SRTS activities can also be funded under a 
broad array of other surface transportation programs. While most 
federal funds for highway projects require a 20 percent match from 
state and local governments, SAFETEA-LU established a 100 percent 
federal share for SRTS projects or activities. We have previously 
reported that grants with federal matching requirements may promote 
relatively more state and local spending than nonmatching grants, thus 
reducing the likelihood that states will use the federal funds to 
replace, rather than supplement, their own spending.[Footnote 9] The 
national task force is considering including a recommendation in its 
forthcoming report that future SRTS legislation allow matching funds 
for infrastructure projects to stimulate state and local spending, 
while maintaining the 100 percent funding requirement for 
infrastructure projects that serve disadvantaged schools (following 
established guidelines for schools that participate in free and reduced 
lunch programs) or schools that are located in areas where child 
pedestrians are at a higher risk of deaths and injuries. Accordingly, 
we have included a matter for consideration by Congress in this report 
suggesting that Congress consider requiring a state or local match for 
the SRTS program that will improve the ability of the program to 
encourage state and local investments in SRTS activities while 
protecting low-income communities from being at a disadvantage when 
competing for SRTS funds. Finally, as Congress prepares for the 
reauthorization of surface transportation programs in 2009, we note 
that transportation stakeholders have expressed various views about the 
extent to which programs, such as SRTS, which are designed in part to 
address nontransportation goals, should be funded in the upcoming 
reauthorization. We have developed and reported criteria and principles 
for re-examining federal programs that can assist congressional 
decision makers and others in assessing the relative contributions of 
transportation programs that may expand the federal transportation role 
beyond those programs that represent traditional transportation 
goals.[Footnote 10] Our work on the SRTS program shows that it 
addresses some of the criteria and principles, such as developing 
coordinated solutions to problems and sharing best practices, although, 
as noted above, the program has made limited progress in developing and 
implementing a framework for evaluating its performance outcomes which 
could limit FHWA's ability to report on how well the SRTS program is 
meetings its national goals and objectives. 

Background: 

Prior to the establishment of the federal SRTS program, some states 
began implementing safe routes to schools programs in the late 1990's 
in response to concerns that declining rates of children walking and 
bicycling to school adversely affected children's health, child 
pedestrian and bicycle safety, and air quality around schools. In 
August 2000, NHTSA implemented two pilot SRTS projects, the Marin 
County Bicycle Coalition and Walk Boston. Based on the experiences of 
the pilot projects and other local programs, NHTSA created a toolkit 
for communities to develop SRTS programs. 

The federal SRTS program is also intended to address health, safety, 
and environmental concerns such as childhood obesity, bicycle and 
pedestrian safety while traveling to and from school, and air pollution 
and congestion around schools. Recent research shows that children are 
experiencing illness and other health problems associated with obesity, 
including Type II diabetes and hypertension,[Footnote 11] and that 
obesity is on the rise due in part to a lack of physical activity. In 
an October 2005 report, we concluded that multiple factors affecting 
physical activity may contribute to childhood obesity.[Footnote 12] 
Additional research suggests that organizations and individuals can 
employ measures to mitigate the safety risks when walking or biking to 
school. In its January 2007 report on traffic safety countermeasures, 
NHTSA cited a study in New Zealand which found that when parents walked 
children to and from school, the risk of injury was only 36 percent of 
the risk of unaccompanied children.[Footnote 13] Other research also 
suggests that policies that increase the number of people walking or 
bicycling appear to be an effective way of improving the safety of 
people walking or bicycling because motorists adjust their behavior in 
the presence of multiple persons walking or bicycling.[Footnote 14] 

Studies have also shown that efforts to reduce traffic congestion near 
schools may affect air quality and health. FHWA has reported that to 
the extent that bicycling and walking displace motor vehicle trips, 
they reduce consumption of fossil fuels and the associated pollution 
and other environmental damage.[Footnote 15] In addition, a study by 
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that efforts to 
reduce downtown traffic congestion in Atlanta during the Olympic Games 
resulted in decreased traffic density, ozone concentrations, and asthma 
acute care events.[Footnote 16] 

SAFETEA-LU included several key requirements for the SRTS program. For 
example, SAFETEA-LU required FHWA to establish a national safe routes 
to school clearinghouse to develop and disseminate information and 
provide technical assistance, establish a national safe routes to 
school task force to study and develop a strategy for advancing safe 
routes to school programs nationwide, and submit a report to Congress 
by the task force describing the results of its study. The legislation 
also required each participating state to hire a full-time SRTS 
coordinator. FHWA requested that each state have a coordinator in place 
by December 31, 2005. Each state is also responsible for developing its 
own policies and procedures for soliciting and selecting projects for 
SRTS funding. SRTS programs can be implemented at different levels--at 
a single school, a cluster of schools, on a school system or regionwide 
basis, or in some cases, on a statewide level. In its program guidance, 
FHWA recommends SRTS efforts incorporate, either directly or 
indirectly, five components. These components are commonly referred to 
as the "five 'E's" and include: engineering (creating physical 
improvements); education (teaching children, parents, and the community 
about safe walking and bicycling behavior, expectations of safe driver 
behavior around schools, and safety skills for walking and bicycling); 
enforcement (ensuring traffic laws are obeyed); encouragement 
(promoting walking and bicycling); and evaluation (monitoring and 
documenting outcomes and trends). 

FHWA provides SRTS funds to each state by formula based on the state's 
percentage of the national total of school-aged children in 
kindergarten through eighth grade, with a minimum allocation of $1 
million in any fiscal year (see app. II for the projected funding by 
state).[Footnote 17] The funds are not transferable, and they remain 
available until expended. The SRTS program is a reimbursement program; 
only costs incurred by states and local grant recipients after FHWA 
project approval are eligible for reimbursement. The federal share of 
the cost of a project or activity is 100 percent and states are not 
allowed to require a local match. 

Eligible activities for funding under SRTS include infrastructure and 
noninfrastructure projects. SAFETEA-LU defined infrastructure projects 
as those that will substantially improve the ability of students to 
walk and bicycle to school, including sidewalk improvements, traffic 
calming and speed reduction improvements, pedestrian and bicycle 
crossing improvements, on-street bicycle facilities, off-street bicycle 
and pedestrian facilities, and traffic diversion improvements in the 
vicinity of schools. Construction, capital improvements, and traffic 
education and traffic enforcement activities must take place within 
approximately 2 miles of a primary or middle school (kindergarten 
through eighth grade). SAFETEA-LU defined eligible noninfrastructure 
activities as those that encourage walking and biking to school, 
including public awareness campaigns; provide traffic education and 
enforcement in the vicinity of schools; and train managers and 
volunteers of safe routes to school programs. States must spend a 
minimum of 10 percent on noninfrastructure activities with a maximum of 
30 percent. 

Under SAFETEA-LU, SRTS infrastructure projects and noninfrastructure 
activities are subject to applicable Federal-Aid Highway 
Program[Footnote 18] requirements in chapter 1 of title 23, including 
establishing project agreements between the state and the grantee and 
obtaining project approval from FHWA prior to incurring costs.[Footnote 
19] In addition, infrastructure projects under the SRTS program must 
comply with Davis Bacon prevailing wage rates.[Footnote 20] 

Finally, our series of reports on 21st Century Challenges suggest 
criteria for re-examining all federal programs and commitments-- 
including SRTS and other transportation programs--to assist in setting 
priorities and linking resources to results.[Footnote 21] 

These criteria include clearly defining the appropriate federal roles, 
incorporating performance results into funding decisions, using best 
practices, and developing coordinated solutions to complex, cross- 
cutting challenges. 

FHWA and the States Have Taken Steps to Implement Key Aspects of the 
SRTS Program: 

FHWA and states have taken steps to implement the key aspects of the 
SRTS program outlined in SAFETEA-LU. FHWA established the National 
Center for Safe Routes to School and the National Safe Routes to School 
Task Force, and provided an interim report to Congress on its progress. 
FHWA also developed program guidance that provides state departments of 
transportation with flexibility in implementing the SRTS program. 
States have taken steps such as hiring SRTS coordinators and initiating 
funding cycles to implement the SRTS program. 

Federal-Level Implementation Addresses Key SAFETEA-LU Requirements: 

FHWA has taken steps to address the key requirements contained in 
SAFETEA-LU for FHWA's implementation of the SRTS program at the federal 
level, completing two requirements and partially completing a third 
requirement, as shown in table 1. 

Table 1: Status of FHWA's Implementation of Key SAFETEA-LU Requirements 
for SRTS: 

SAFETEA-LU requirement: Establish a national safe routes to school 
clearinghouse to develop and disseminate information and provide 
technical assistance; 
Status: Complete. 

SAFETEA-LU requirement: Establish a national safe routes to school task 
force to study and develop a strategy for advancing safe routes to 
school programs nationwide; 
Status: Complete. 

SAFETEA-LU requirement: Submit a report to Congress by the national 
task force describing the results of its study; 
Status: Partially complete[A]. 

Source: GAO analysis of information provided by FHWA. 

[A] DOT submitted an interim report in April 2006 to respond to this 
requirement and is working with the national task force on a more 
detailed report. As of May 2008, DOT did not have a target date for 
submitting a full report to Congress and the public. 

[End of table] 

In May 2006, FHWA established the clearinghouse, which has been 
developed and led by the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill 
through a cooperative agreement between it and FHWA. As of February 
2008, the total value of the cooperative agreement was approximately 
$8.1 million.[Footnote 22] The clearinghouse offers a centralized 
source of information on how to start and sustain a SRTS program, as 
well as many other resources for training and technical assistance. 
Entities we interviewed generally indicated that the clearinghouse is a 
useful resource for garnering easy access to information. 

In October 2006, FHWA established the national task force, representing 
health, safety, education, and transportation experts, under a 2-year 
charter that expires in October 2008. FHWA's legal counsel determined 
that the establishment of the national task force fell within the scope 
of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). Under the provisions of 
FACA, federal agencies sponsoring advisory committees must, among other 
things, file a charter with Congress before the committee can begin 
operating; publish adequate advance notice of meetings in the Federal 
Register; open advisory committee meetings to the public (with some 
exceptions); make available for public inspection, subject to the 
Freedom of Information Act, papers and records, including detailed 
minutes of each meeting; and maintain records of expenditures. FACA 
also requires that committee membership be balanced in terms of points 
of views represented. The DOT selected the national task force members 
through an application process, using a variety of selection factors 
such as geographical distribution, gender, minority status, 
organization represented, and expertise. The national task force 
includes representatives from the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety, 
American Academy of Pediatrics, American Public Works Association, 
American Traffic Safety Services Association, Association of Pedestrian 
and Bicycle Professionals, the Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention, Institute of Transportation Engineers, local law 
enforcement, education and metropolitan planning officials, the 
National Association of Regional Councils, the National Center for 
Bicycling and Walking, the Safe Routes to School National Partnership, 
the State and Territorial Injury Prevention Directors Association, and 
state and local SRTS program representatives. According to DOT, the 
national task force represents a cross section of agencies, 
organizations and individuals that are involved in SRTS activities and 
programs throughout the United States. 

SAFETEA-LU required the national task force to submit a report to 
Congress by March 31, 2006, detailing the results of its work. 
According to FHWA, because of the steps required by FACA and the 
limited time available after SAFETEA-LU was enacted in August 2005, the 
national task force was not yet established and therefore could not 
submit a full report by the required date. Therefore, to address the 
statutory requirement, DOT submitted an interim status report to 
Congress in April 2006 detailing the actions FHWA took to implement the 
SRTS program nationwide and stating that the national task force would, 
at a later date, submit a more detailed report with recommendations for 
moving the SRTS program forward. According to minutes from its 
meetings, the national task force is in the process of developing a 
draft report covering such topics as program success, program 
challenges and opportunities, and national strategies for advancing 
SRTS, and it expects to submit the full report to DOT no later than 
September 30, 2008. As of May 2008, DOT did not have a target date for 
submitting the full report to Congress and the public. 

FHWA Developed Program Guidance That Provides State DOTs with 
Flexibility in Implementing the SRTS Program: 

FHWA issued its SRTS program guidance on January 3, 2006 to coincide 
with its recommendation that states hire their SRTS coordinators by 
December 31, 2005. The guidance suggested that states consider the 
following objectives when structuring their program: 

* enable participation on a variety of levels, 

* make the program accessible to diverse participants, 

* promote comprehensive SRTS programs and activities, and: 

* maximize impact of the funds. [Footnote 23] 

Each state is responsible for developing its own policies and 
procedures for soliciting and selecting projects for funding such as 
selection criteria, funding cycles, grant amounts, and time limits. 

Given the flexibility the FHWA guidance provides states in developing 
policies and procedures, program administration differed across the 
states we visited or interviewed. Figure 1 provides a description of 
program characteristics of the states we visited or SRTS officials we 
interviewed by telephone. Program administration information was not 
available on a national level; therefore, the examples below are 
provided for illustrative purposes. 

Figure 1: Program Administration Characteristics of States We Visited 
or Interviewed: 

This figure is a diagram of program administration characteristics we 
visited or interviewed. 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: GAO analysis of state DOT information. 

[End of figure] 

In addition, the SRTS program stakeholders we interviewed generally 
said the federal program provides the appropriate level of flexibility. 
Those that said the federal program was not flexible generally cited 
difficulties in complying with the title 23 requirements as the reason. 
For example, several local grant recipients described the title 23 
requirements as burdensome relative to the small scale of SRTS 
projects. 

States Have Taken Steps, Such as Hiring SRTS Coordinators and 
Initiating Funding Cycles, to Implement the SRTS Program: 

States have made progress in implementing the SRTS program. As shown in 
table 2, as of March 31, 2008, all states had designated SRTS program 
coordinators, and only one state (Georgia) had yet to start its SRTS 
funding process. In addition, the number of participating schools 
increased substantially during the second year of the program's 
implementation--from approximately 300 through December 2006 to 
approximately 2,700 through March 2008, an increase of about 2,400 
schools or 800 percent during that period. 

Table 2: State Progress in Implementing SRTS Programs through March 31, 
2008A: 

Implementation category: Approximate number of participating schools; 
Number: 2,700. 

Implementation category: States with program coordinators; Number: 51. 

Implementation category: States that have started the funding 
process[B]; 
Number: 50. 

Implementation category: States that have awarded funds for local and/ 
or statewide SRTS programs; 
Number: 46. 

Implementation category: States that have started a second funding 
cycle; 
Number: 26. 

Implementation category: States that have started a third funding 
cycle; 
Number: 6. 

Source: National Center for Safe Routes to School. 

[A] Includes the District of Columbia. 

[B] Includes meeting at least one of the following criteria: awarded 
funding, has a current open application process, or closed applications 
pending announcement of funding recipients. 

[End of table] 

States have also made some progress in awarding SRTS funds, according 
to data compiled by the clearinghouse. As shown in table 3, as of March 
2008, states had awarded nearly $222 million or 53 percent of the $416 
million apportioned by FHWA for SRTS through that period. 

Table 3: Total SRTS Funding Awarded by States, by Fiscal Year: 

Time period: Through fiscal year 2006; 
Cumulative amount apportioned by FHWA: $147,030,000; 
Cumulative amount awarded by states[A]: Not available. 

Time period: Through fiscal year 2007; 
Cumulative amount apportioned by FHWA: 269,030,000; 
Cumulative amount awarded by states[A]: 156,081,270. 

Time period: Through fiscal year 2008 (as of March 31, 2008); 
Cumulative amount apportioned by FHWA: 416,030,000; 
Cumulative amount awarded by states[A]: 221,721,516. 

Source: FHWA and the National Center for Safe Routes to School. 

[A] Amounts awarded by states include the amounts that state SRTS 
programs have announced they will spend on specific local SRTS projects 
or programs. All funds awarded may not have yet been dispersed. In 
addition, data is not available through September 2006 because the 
clearinghouse's first tracking report covers the period through October 
2006. 

[End of table] 

With respect to spending these funds, states generally must take 
multiple steps before obligating awarded SRTS funds such as developing 
a project agreement with the grantee, including the funds in the 
appropriate metropolitan planning organization's Transportation 
Improvement Program and the Statewide Transportation Improvement 
Program, and as applicable, completing environmental clearances and 
preliminary engineering studies.[Footnote 24] As shown in table 4, as 
of March 2008, states have obligated approximately $75 million or 18 
percent of the $416 million apportioned by FHWA for SRTS through that 
period. 

Table 4: Total SRTS Funding Apportioned, Obligated, Unobligated, and 
Obligation Rate, by Fiscal Year: 

Time period: Through fiscal year 2006; 
Cumulative amount apportioned by FHWA: $147,030,000; 
Cumulative amount obligated by states: $11,178,350; 
Cumulative unobligated balance: $135,851,650; 
Obligation rate: 8. 

Time period: Through fiscal year 2007; 
Cumulative amount apportioned by FHWA: 269,030,000; 
Cumulative amount obligated by states: 51,872,298; 
Cumulative unobligated balance: 217,157,702; 
Obligation rate: 19. 

Time period: Through fiscal year 2008[A]; 
Cumulative amount apportioned by FHWA: 416,030,000; 
Cumulative amount obligated by states: 74,929,993; 
Cumulative unobligated balance: 341,100,007; 
Obligation rate: 18[B]. 

Source: FHWA. 

[A] This is as of March 31, 2008. 

[B] The obligation rate shows a decrease, in part, because the fiscal 
year has not been completed. 

[End of table] 

While each state's SRTS program funds a unique list of specific 
projects, there are commonalities. During our site visits we found that 
SRTS activities taking place at the state and local level include both 
infrastructure and noninfrastructure activities such as sidewalk 
installation; sidewalk gap closures; traffic calming measures (traffic 
management techniques designed to slow cars); pedestrian and bicycle 
safety education programs; and increased traffic enforcement in school 
zones. On the basis of our site visits, some examples of some specific 
activities funded include: 

* The Washington Area Bicyclist Association's "Street Smart" program, 
which was implemented in the District of Columbia, teaches children how 
to safely cross the street and intersection, the importance of wearing 
bicycle helmets, how to make sure children and their bicycles are ready 
for a safe ride, the rules of the road, and how to safely control 
bicycles. The core of the program is a 1 week pedestrian and bicycle 
course taught in specific elementary schools. Kindergarten, first, and 
second graders are taught pedestrian safety, while third, forth, and 
fifth graders are taught bicycle safety. Officials from this 
association told us that they try to incorporate students with 
disabilities into their lessons and other activities, such as helmet 
fittings. 

* The Florida DOT provided funding to Pinellas County to purchase speed 
feedback signs for 16 locations near schools. Two of the speed feedback 
signs have been placed at designated locations and the rest have been 
ordered, according to officials from Pinellas County. The signs collect 
traffic and speed data continuously that can be used to more 
effectively deploy law enforcement to problem areas and times. The 
county selected the locations in conjunction with the school district 
using criteria such as the current number of students walking or biking 
to school based on crossing guard counts, the type of roadways being 
crossed by students, traffic safety devices already in the areas, and 
areas with high levels of noncompliance with traffic rules based on 
citations issued by law enforcement. See figure 2 for a picture of the 
speed feedback sign. 

Figure 2: Picture of Speed Feedback Sign: 

This figure is a picture of a speed feedback sign. 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: GAO. 

[End of figure] 

Significant Evaluation Efforts Have Been Made, but FHWA and States Do 
Not Have a Comprehensive Plan to Evaluate the Program: 

FHWA, the clearinghouse, and the national task force have made 
significant efforts to develop a framework for measuring program 
outcomes, including creating standardized evaluation forms and a six- 
step process to assist local SRTS programs in developing their 
evaluation plans. However, a more comprehensive program evaluation plan 
may further help FHWA to identify and target desired national and local 
outcomes. Although it is too early to comprehensively identify results 
to date, challenges to program implementation and overall program 
effectiveness have been identified, such as compliance with title 23 
requirements and school siting policies. 

Although Significant Efforts Have Been Made, FHWA and States Have Not 
Fully Developed Comprehensive Policies and Procedures for Evaluating 
Program Outcomes: 

SAFETEA-LU requires the Secretary of Transportation to report to 
Congress on the work of the national task force and on the uses of SRTS 
funds. FHWA's program guidance recommends that states evaluate their 
SRTS programs. The guidance requests that states gather and provide 
information on the evaluation of safety benefits, behavioral changes, 
and other potential benefits including "measurements of student health, 
air quality, congestion, and other metrics noted or implied by the 
legislative purposes of the program." According to the SRTS program 
manager, FHWA division offices are responsible for overseeing SRTS 
projects in their respective states. FHWA headquarters did not develop 
specific oversight guidance for SRTS projects since the program falls 
under the regular federal-aid process which FHWA division staff manage 
on a daily basis. 

We have previously described challenges related to developing national 
evaluations of federal programs when (1) program goals are broad and 
general and (2) state or local agencies have been delegated the 
authority to determine how to carry out the programs to meet specific 
local needs.[Footnote 25] When states and localities set their own 
short-term and intermediate goals, common measures to aggregate across 
projects are often lacking, so it is difficult to assess national 
progress toward a common goal. Additionally, such programs also tend to 
have limited federal reporting requirements. Therefore, little 
information may be available on how well a national program is 
progressing toward its national goals. Agencies facing these challenges 
generally have two options: (1) find common measures or (2) encourage 
locally tailored evaluations. 

The clearinghouse, FHWA, and the national task force have taken steps 
to develop a framework for evaluation efforts that address both finding 
common measures and encouraging locally tailored evaluations. For 
example, the clearinghouse has undertaken multiple efforts to address 
program evaluation, including collecting national level data and 
developing evaluation guidance for local programs. The clearinghouse 
developed standardized data collection forms to collect national-level 
data on the number of children walking and bicycling to school, as well 
as parental attitudes toward these transportation modes. Using these 
forms, programs can either enter their own data into the 
clearinghouse's Web-based data entry system or send completed data 
collection forms to the clearinghouse for processing. In addition, 
state and local programs are able to use this information to generate 
other reports about their SRTS activities. As of May 1, 2008, data from 
34 states had been either entered through the online system or 
processed by the clearinghouse. More than 17,000 parent surveys and 
3,400 student tally forms (representing approximately 63,000 students) 
from about 230 schools were in the database. 

In November 2007, FHWA modified its agreement with the clearinghouse to 
provide an additional $1.8 million to, among other things, evaluate 
SRTS program strategies and develop a safety monitoring program. The 
clearinghouse will use an expert panel and information from its 
tracking database to identify specific strategies to evaluate. It is 
currently in the process of identifying representatives to sit on the 
expert panel and will provide FHWA with three to six evaluation reports 
of specific SRTS strategies each year once activities are underway, 
including a 6-and 12-month report for the fiscal year ending in 
September 2009. These evaluation reports will concentrate on the 4 E's 
(education, encouragement, enforcement, and engineering) as they are 
implemented at the local level. In addition, the clearinghouse will 
establish a safety monitoring program--employing a comprehensive 
database of large-scale state and national crash databases and local 
program details--to develop and implement a process to monitor, 
document, and measure potential safety outcomes from SRTS programs. 
These outcomes will include crash reductions, fatality reductions, and 
parental perceptions of safety. The clearinghouse plans to develop an 
initial report by September 2008, conduct analysis of initial data by 
December 2008, and to subsequently provide annual reports. 

At the state and local levels, the clearinghouse has conducted Web- 
based evaluation training sessions for SRTS state coordinators and 
developed evaluation guidance for local SRTS programs. The guidance 
includes a six-step process to assist local programs in developing and 
implementing evaluation plans. These six steps involve identifying 
local objectives and determining what, how, and when to measure. The 
clearinghouse is also working to develop a safety index, requested by 
engineers and other local transportation professionals, to assist with 
identifying and prioritizing infrastructure improvement needs along 
school routes. 

Although not mandatory, FHWA strongly recommends that states use the 
standardized collection instruments described above to help evaluate 
the SRTS program. States we visited or interviewed said their plans for 
program evaluation were still under development but each one indicated 
it would require grant recipients to use the standardized evaluation 
tools developed by clearinghouse. FHWA program guidance also stated 
that additional guidance will be provided in the future to evaluate 
program success. In November 2006 and May 2007, FHWA's SRTS program 
manager sent an e-mail to the SRTS state coordinators recommending the 
use of the standardized forms, as well as additional guidance for 
entering the information into the clearinghouse's database. Moreover, 
the national task force is considering potential strategies and 
recommendations to improve performance accountability for its 
forthcoming report to Congress. 

Considering SRTS' multiple program purposes and potential outcomes and 
varying SRTS activities and projects at the state and local levels, the 
clearinghouse, FHWA, and the national task force have made significant 
efforts toward establishing evaluation measures but challenges remain. 
FHWA did not require states to evaluate their SRTS programs because 
SAFETEA-LU did not contain an explicit requirement to evaluate the 
program. According to FHWA officials, the agency did not believe it had 
the legislative authority to require evaluation. However, we believe 
that federal and other agencies that have been given the authority to 
award grants have implied authority to do those things that are 
reasonably required to administer the grant, including ensuring 
accountability for the performance of the grant. In particular, federal 
and other government agencies are accountable for ensuring that the 
grant funds are used to carry out the purpose of the grant, a duty 
which in turn may require the collection of data to measure 
performance. We believe, therefore, that FHWA should have included 
language in its grant agreements that would have required the states to 
collect and report data relevant to appropriate performance indicators. 

Stakeholders we interviewed had mixed views about whether the voluntary 
nature of SRTS's evaluation component will yield comprehensive national 
data on SRTS results. For example, officials from both the FHWA and the 
clearinghouse indicated they do not believe that the lack of an 
evaluation requirement will hinder evaluation efforts. In contrast, 
some SRTS stakeholders would prefer an evaluation requirement. For 
example, the Safe Routes to School National Partnership, a network of 
nonprofit organizations, government agencies, schools, and 
professionals working to advance the SRTS movement in the United 
States, sent a letter to FHWA in June 2007 expressing concern that FHWA 
cannot do more than "strongly encourage" state DOTs to collect SRTS 
program data because the Partnership believes that gauging the 
performance of a $612 million program is important and will require 
data and analysis.[Footnote 26] A public health advisor from the 
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Division of Nutrition, 
Physical Activity, and Obesity, also stated that evaluation should not 
be an option for states because everyone involved with SRTS needs to 
know if the program is achieving its objectives. 

While the clearinghouse's SRTS guidance includes an evaluation section 
and provides tools to assist local communities in evaluating their SRTS 
projects, these tools focus on safety-related measures and 
participation in SRTS activities, but do not address measuring 
potential health and environmental outcomes. The director of the 
clearinghouse told us the clearinghouse has engaged in initial 
discussions with CDC and EPA to identify opportunities to collaborate 
in many program areas, including developing appropriate outcome 
measures and methodologies. 

Finally, although the clearinghouse's standardized data collection 
forms provide a method for reporting on how students get to school and 
parental perceptions about walking to school, neither FHWA nor the 
clearinghouse have issued guidance to states and local program 
recipients on reporting other potential safety, health, or 
environmental outcomes. The lack of reporting requirements could limit 
FHWA's ability to evaluate progress towards meeting the purposes of the 
program. 

Developing reasonable outcome-based performance measures is a key re- 
examination criterion from our 21st Century Challenges work. In March 
2008, we suggested that Congress should consider reexamining and 
refocusing surface transportation programs to, among other things, make 
grantees more accountable through more performance-based links between 
funding and program outcomes.[Footnote 27] In addition, the Government 
Performance Results Act also requires agencies to measure performance 
toward the achievement of program goals and objectives. Performance 
data allow agencies to share effective approaches, recognize problems, 
look for solutions, and develop ways to improve results. We also 
reported that measures should represent performance that is within the 
grantee's sphere of influence and that can be achieved and evaluated 
within a specified time frame; grantees should have the necessary 
knowledge of the measures and the ability to effectively implement 
them; and implementation should be phased in.[Footnote 28] FHWA, the 
clearinghouse, and the national task force have made significant 
efforts to develop appropriate performance measures. However, the 
current gaps in the evaluation framework--the lack of an FHWA 
requirement for states to collect data relevant for evaluating the 
program, limited performance measures for potential health and 
environmental outcomes, and limited reporting requirements--could limit 
FHWA's ability to report on SRTS program outcomes. 

Too Early to Comprehensively Identify Results to Date, but Challenges 
to Program Implementation and Overall Program Effectiveness Have Been 
Identified: 

FHWA's program guidance lists numerous possible outcomes, including, 
among other things, increased bicycle, pedestrian, and traffic safety; 
more children walking and bicycling to and from schools; decreased 
traffic congestion; improved childhood health; and increased community 
security. However, no outcome-oriented results to date at the national 
level have been identified. 

National stakeholders, state coordinators, local grant recipients, and 
the national task force indicated it is too early in implementation to 
quantify results of the SRTS program. In lieu of outcome results, 
national stakeholders identified other initial program outcomes, as 
highlighted in table 5. 

Table 5: Description of Selected Program Outcomes Identified by 
National Stakeholders: 

Results: Increased coordination; 
Source: Safe Routes to School National Partnership; 
Description: The SRTS program has helped build partnerships among 
cities, schools, and counties, as well as with other stakeholders 
including various state and regional agencies that serve on state 
advisory committees. 

Results: Institutional support for SRTS activities has increased; 
Source: National Center for Bicycling and Walking; 
Bicycle Transportation Alliance[A]; 
Description: Federal support for SRTS activities legitimized efforts, 
encouraged additional support from law enforcement and school 
officials, and focused national attention on school transportation 
issues. 

Source: GAO analysis. 

[A] The Bicycle Transportation Alliance is a nonprofit organization in 
Oregon that works to create healthier, more sustainable communities by 
making bicycling safe, convenient, and accessible. It also serves as a 
technical advisor for Oregon's SRTS program. 

[End of table] 

Although results to date are limited, states we visited reported SRTS 
projects are underway. Table 6 illustrates examples of current SRTS 
activities in the state and local level programs we visited. 

Table 6: Selected Federal SRTS Activities to Date in Visited States and 
Local Grant Recipients: 

Site: California: Statewide; 
Description of SRTS activities: Funded 98 applications (out of 
approximately 500 to 600 applications) in the first application cycle. 

Site: California: City of Sebastopol, local grant recipient; 
Description of SRTS activities: Received an infrastructure grant for 
sidewalk gap closure and enhanced pedestrian crossing. Received a 
noninfrastructure grant to implement an SRTS education program in four 
elementary schools. 

Site: California: Marin County, local grant recipient; 
Description of SRTS activities: Received an infrastructure grant for 
six to eight blocks of sidewalk to complete a path of travel to school. 

Site: California: City and County of San Francisco, local grant 
recipient; 
Description of SRTS activities: Received two infrastructure grants, 
including traffic-calming measures, cross-walks with flashing beacons, 
and signalizing areas in the vicinity of two schools; 
One noninfrastructure grant for five elementary schools in the first 
year and an additional ten schools in the second year of a pilot 
program, including pedestrian and bicycle safety classes, walking 
audits, and Walk to School Day activities; 
Obtained a commitment from the San Francisco Police Department for 
increased traffic enforcement in the vicinity of the pilot schools. 

Site: District of Columbia: Washington Area Bicyclists Association, 
contract service provider; 
Description of SRTS activities: Delivered education program to 
approximately 3,500 students between October 2006 and October 2007. 

Site: Florida: Statewide; 
Description of SRTS activities: Funded 177 local SRTS projects and two 
statewide projects through the first application cycle. 

Site: Florida: Florida Department of Transportation, District 7; 
Description of SRTS activities: Completed two application cycles, 
funding 106 infrastructure projects and three noninfrastructure 
projects. 

Site: Florida: More Health, local grant recipient in District 7; 
Description of SRTS activities: Taught a total of 3,178 first grade 
students bicycle and pedestrian safety lessons as of December 2007. 

Site: Florida: Pinellas County and Pinellas Public Schools, local grant 
recipient in District 7; 
Description of SRTS activities: Installed two speed feedback signs near 
school zones. After installation, observed a 94 percent compliance rate 
within school zone speed limits. 

Source: GAO analysis of information provided by states and local grant 
recipients. 

[End of table] 

The clearinghouse also developed overviews of state SRTS programs 
nominated for the 2007 James Oberstar Safe Routes to School award, 
recognizing exemplary initiation of a state program. In addition, the 
clearinghouse has compiled a list of SRTS case studies from programs 
that have used federal SRTS funding, as well as programs that received 
SRTS funding from other sources such as NHTSA and state and local 
governments. The clearinghouse both identified candidate programs for 
the case studies and prepared those summaries, as well as requested 
that states and local programs submit a description of activities 
undertaken in their communities. Approximately 100 case studies at 
various stages of implementation were either written by the 
clearinghouse or submitted by states and local programs. The case 
studies featured activities such as: 

* bicycle and pedestrian education programs, 

* Walk to School Days, 

* infrastructure activities including curb extensions and the 
construction of a trail to connect neighborhoods with an elementary 
school, and: 

* crossing guard programs and increased enforcement of school zone 
speed limits. 

About 40 percent of the case studies provided results to date 
including: 

* increased student knowledge of bicycle and pedestrian safety 
procedures, 

* increased participation in Walk to School Day events, 

* increased numbers of students walking and biking to school, 

* slower traffic in school zones, and: 

* increased parental involvement. 

Evaluation efforts of other SRTS-related activities may also provide 
examples of potential measures and standards for further developing 
plans to monitor program performance. For example, in addition to the 
federally funded SRTS program, California administers a state 
legislated SRTS program referred to as "SR2S." Mandated studies in 2003 
and 2007 of the California SR2S program found that the state-funded 
safe routes to school activities increased walking and bicycling among 
children.[Footnote 29] The 2007 study also found that although the SR2S 
program increased walking and bicycling among children, the estimated 
effect varied greatly from school to school and varied depending on the 
method used to determine changes in physical activity (e.g., direct 
observations versus parent surveys). In addition, when the increase in 
the numbers of children walking and bicycling to school was taken into 
account, the SR2S program appeared to have had a net benefit in terms 
of safety (i.e., a decline in the numbers of children involved in 
crashes while walking or bicycling). Lastly, the study reported that a 
wide range of stakeholders--including parents, school boards, school 
officials and administrators, teachers, local communities and 
residents, and other involved parties--expressed satisfaction with the 
SR2S program. 

Although overall results have not yet been identified, stakeholders we 
interviewed identified challenges to identifying and achieving SRTS 
program results, including challenges to implementation and overall 
program effectiveness, as shown in table 7. 

Table 7: Key Challenges to Program Implementation and Overall Program 
Effectiveness Identified by National, State, and Local Stakeholders: 

Challenge: Challenges to program implementation: Compliance with title 
23; 
Description/example: Federal funding requirements for funding 
allocations and construction of small SRTS projects mirror those for 
large state highway projects. Small SRTS grant awards can require 
considerable time and effort to administer. These requirements can 
deter some schools and communities from applying for funds due, in 
part, to compliance costs. Communities with limited experience dealing 
with federal contracting requirements also may face delays in project 
implementation. For example, one state coordinator told us that some 
local grant recipients had limited experience with title 23 
requirements and were confused about how to comply with the 
requirements, which delayed their SRTS projects. 

Challenge: Challenges to program implementation: Data collection; 
Description/example: State coordinators and local grant recipients have 
identified challenges to collecting consistent and reliable data. For 
example, using existing national and state data, it is difficult to 
identify the purpose of a pedestrian or bicycling trip (e.g., whether 
they were traveling to or from school) when an injury or fatality 
occurs. 

Challenge: Challenges to program implementation: Personal safety; 
Description/example: Parent perceptions of safety can be a barrier in 
successfully implementing SRTS programs. For example, according to 
state DOT officials in Florida, three high profile child abductions in 
the Tampa metropolitan area had a tremendous impact on parents' safety 
perceptions of walking and biking to school. 

Challenge: Challenges to overall program effectiveness: Limited 
research linking SRTS programs with health outcomes; 
Description/example: One study concluded that the current literature 
does not support a link between walking to school and reduced body-mass 
index or levels of obesity.[A]; The National Center for Safe Routes to 
Schools acknowledged that health outcomes may be difficult to measure 
because health outcomes may result from multiple interventions (changes 
in diet, physical activities, etc.) outside of the SRTS activities and 
because the program is administered by transportation professionals who 
may lack expertise in measuring health outcomes. 

Challenge: Challenges to overall program effectiveness: Local school 
district attitudes and policies; 
Description/ example: Some communities have faced challenges in 
involving school districts in SRTS programs because school 
administrators are under pressure to achieve academic gains and are 
reluctant to participate in programs that do not directly address that 
priority. In addition, policies such as open school enrollment and 
magnet schools can reduce opportunities for students to walk or bicycle 
to school. 

Challenge: Challenges to overall program effectiveness: School siting; 
Description/example: School siting policies can result in children 
living in communities outside of walking and bicycling distance to 
school. 

Source: GAO analysis. 

[A] Murray Lee, et. al., Health Impacts of the School Commute 
(forthcoming). 

[End of table] 

In addition to the challenges described above, communities will also 
need to address other related issues. For example, the Safe Routes to 
School National Partnership indicated some urban communities have a 
need to address negative safety perceptions caused by vacant lots or 
abandoned housing, but activities such as mowing vacant lots or 
demolition are not eligible. In addition, a local grant recipient in 
Florida noted that rural areas may have a greater need for projects to 
address safe routes to bus stops. 

SRTS Program Broadens Federal Transportation Role and Overlaps with 
Other Surface Transportation Programs, but Has Successfully Applied 
Some Criteria for Addressing 21st Century Challenges: 

The SRTS program broadens the federal transportation role although 
federal funding for the program is relatively small. SRTS activities 
can be funded under other surface transportation programs, as well as 
state and local programs, but the lack of a matching requirement may 
limit the ability of the SRTS program to encourage additional state and 
local investment. Finally, as Congress prepares for reauthorizing SRTS 
and other surface transportation programs, it will need to consider the 
relative contributions of the programs in solving our nation's 
transportation problems and achieving federal goals. 

SRTS Program Broadens Federal Transportation Role, although Federal 
Funding for the Program Is Relatively Small: 

The SRTS program is the first FHWA program designed primarily to 
encourage children to walk and bicycle to school. The program was 
established largely to address concerns about bicycle and pedestrian 
safety of children traveling to and from school, childhood obesity and 
inactivity, and traffic and environmental problems in the vicinity of 
schools, rather than primarily to address broader concerns about the 
condition of surface transportation infrastructure or highway safety. 
Accordingly, the program expands the federal transportation role into 
new areas. However, the budget authorization for the SRTS program under 
SAFETEA-LU constitutes less than 1 percent of the total highway program 
authorization under the legislation.[Footnote 30] The SRTS program is 
one of several that address other societal and environmental goals. As 
we reported in March 2008, the federal role in surface transportation 
has expanded over the decades to include broader goals (e.g., civil 
rights, environmental protection, urban planning, and economic 
development); more programs; and a variety of program structures. We 
suggested to Congress that it consider re-examining and refocusing 
surface transportation programs to ensure that they are linked to 
federal goals and interests, have performance-based outcomes, use tools 
that emphasize the return on the federal investment, and ensure fiscal 
sustainability.[Footnote 31] 

SRTS Activities Could Be Funded from Multiple Federal and Other 
Programs, but the Lack of a Matching Requirement May Limit the Ability 
of the Program to Encourage State and Local Investment: 

The federal SRTS program provides funding for activities that, at least 
in part, could also be funded by a broad array of other federal, state, 
and local funding sources. For example, according to FHWA, some SRTS 
activities may be eligible for funding under six other federal surface 
transportation programs--including five programs administered by FHWA 
(Transportation Enhancements Program, the Surface Transportation 
Program, the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program, 
the Highway Safety Improvement Program, and the Equity Bonus Program) 
and one program administered by the National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration (NHTSA's Section 402 Traffic Safety program)--provided 
that transportation decision makers are willing to allocate such 
program monies toward SRTS activities. Furthermore, FHWA's program 
guidance for the SRTS program points out that numerous other federal, 
state, and local funding sources are available to complement the SRTS 
funds, including various transportation, health, recreation, physical 
education, law enforcement, and safety program funds. These include six 
state-funded SRTS programs that mirror the federal SRTS program in that 
they are designed to address similar objectives. 

While some SRTS activities may be eligible to receive funds from these 
other federal transportation programs, the federal, state, and local 
officials we spoke with had varying opinions about whether funds from 
other federal transportation programs would actually be awarded for 
SRTS activities. For example, during our four site visits, three of the 
four FHWA division officials we interviewed said that it would likely 
be difficult for SRTS projects to obtain other DOT funding because they 
believed that federal and state officials had other priorities for 
those funds. On the other hand, three of the four state SRTS 
coordinators we interviewed said that SRTS projects could be successful 
in securing funds from other federal transportation programs, since 
such projects have been successful in doing so in the past. While 
opinions varied about whether SRTS activities would be a high enough 
priority to be awarded funding under the other federal programs, over 
two-thirds of the entities we interviewed in both the site visits and 
the national stakeholder meetings (23 of 34 entities) indicated that 
eliminating funding for the federal SRTS program would adversely affect 
the momentum of the program and likely result in many SRTS projects 
being eliminated. 

Generally, most federal funds for federal-aid highway projects must be 
matched by funds from other sources; state and local governments 
usually contribute 20 percent to the costs of a project. SRTS is an 
exception. SAFETEA-LU sets the federal share of the cost of a SRTS 
project or activity at 100 percent. We have previously reported that 
grants with federal matching requirements may promote relatively more 
state and local spending than nonmatching grants, thus reducing the 
likelihood that states will use the federal funds to replace, rather 
than supplement, their own spending.[Footnote 32] Furthermore, we have 
concluded that, in some instances, the federal matching requirement 
should be revised upward for federal-aid highway program funds to 
increase the extent to which federal-aid highway program funds are used 
to supplement state highway funds rather than substitute for 
them.[Footnote 33] 

The national SRTS task force is considering including a recommendation 
in its forthcoming report that future SRTS legislation allow matching 
funds for infrastructure projects to stimulate state and local 
spending, while maintaining the 100 percent funding requirement for 
infrastructure projects that serve disadvantaged schools (following 
established guidelines for schools that participate in free and reduced 
lunch programs) or schools that are located in areas where child 
pedestrians are at a higher risk of deaths and injuries. 

Considerations in Reauthorizing SRTS and Other Surface Transportation 
Programs: 

As Congress prepares for the reauthorization of the surface 
transportation programs in 2009, it will need to re-examine the 
relative contributions of SRTS and all other federal surface 
transportation programs in solving our nation's transportation problems 
and achieving federal goals. As we have previously reported, many 
current federal surface transportation programs may not be effective in 
addressing such key transportation challenges as increasing congestion 
and freight demand because the federal goals and roles are unclear; 
many programs lack links to needs or performance; and the programs 
often do not employ the best tools and approaches.[Footnote 34] At the 
same time, the funding outlook for surface transportation programs is 
uncertain. Without significant changes in funding mechanisms, revenue 
sources, or planned spending, the Highway Trust Fund--the major source 
of federal highway and transit spending--is projected to incur 
significant deficits in the years ahead. 

Many transportation groups and stakeholders are currently examining 
reauthorization issues and articulating their views about national 
transportation priorities and the types of federal surface 
transportation investments that best address those priorities. All of 
these groups acknowledge a need for transportation programs that 
address the traditional transportation goals of improving mobility, 
safety, and the transportation infrastructure. However, some groups, 
such as "Transportation for America"--which is a consortium of 13 
organizations representing diverse perspectives in transit, housing, 
aging, the environment, community development, and other issues--the 
Surface Transportation Policy Partnership, and the Center for Clean Air 
Policy, argue that future transportation investments must also be 
designed to enhance the economy, improve public health, protect the 
environment, and promote social equity to ensure sustainability and 
enhance the quality of life for all Americans. Other groups, such as 
the American Road and Transportation Builders Association and the 
American Highway Users Alliance, emphasize the need to protect federal 
surface transportation spending levels in the reauthorization process 
and prevent the diversion of federal highway revenues to nonhighway 
uses, so that the federal government can support the types of 
investments needed to enhance infrastructure capacity, highway safety, 
and congestion relief. 

In our prior work, we have identified several principles that 
congressional decision makers and others can use in re-examining the 
relative contributions of all federal surface transportation programs, 
including the SRTS program. For example, in March 2008, we identified 
five principles to guide the assessment of options for restructuring 
federal surface transportation programs, as follows: (1) create well- 
defined goals based on identified areas of federal interest, (2) 
establish and clearly define the federal role in achieving each goal, 
(3) incorporate performance accountability for results into funding 
decisions, (4) employ the best tools and approaches to emphasize return 
on investment, and (5) ensure fiscal sustainability.[Footnote 35] In 
addition, our prior body of work on 21st Century Challenges also 
provides additional criteria for re-examining all government programs, 
including federal surface transportation programs.[Footnote 36] In 
addition to the principles discussed above, the criteria include 
developing coordinated solutions to complex, cross-cutting challenges 
and targeting benefits to those most in need. 

Our work on the SRTS program addresses the extent to which the program 
has addressed a few of these principles and criteria such as federal 
interest, coordination, targeting, best practices, and performance 
accountability. For example, the program expands the role and interest 
of the federal government by adding prevention of obesity and improving 
children's health to the Federal-Aid Highway Program. In addition, in 
designing and implementing the SRTS program, FHWA and the national task 
force encouraged coordination with many stakeholders, including other 
federal agencies. The national task force included representatives from 
public health, the transportation industry, education, law enforcement, 
and the bicycle and pedestrian community and FHWA's program guidance 
encouraged state DOTs to collaborate with all interested organizations 
and to leverage additional funds from related funding sources. With 
respect to targeting, as previously mentioned, the SRTS program has a 
provision under SAFETEA-LU--requiring the federal government to pay for 
100 percent of project costs--that can protect low-income communities 
from being at a disadvantage when competing for funds since they do not 
have to provide matching funds to secure SRTS funding for a project. 
Furthermore, both FHWA and its SRTS partners (the national task force, 
the clearinghouse, the SRTS National Partnership, and NHTSA) have 
collectively taken a number of steps to identify and share best 
practices related to the program, including: 

* disseminating the two publications "Safe Routes to School," a tool 
kit for implementing SRTS activities and "Safe Routes to School-- 
Practices and Promises" both developed by NHTSA; 

* sponsoring a national conference in 2007 to bring together 
practitioners and share lessons learned; 

* promoting good principles for conducting an SRTS program, known as 
the "five Es", that include education, encouragement, enforcement, 
engineering, and evaluation; 

* promoting and updating a national SRTS training course and the online 
SRTS training guide reflecting learned experiences; 

* encouraging a unified evaluation approach using standardized data 
collection instruments to collect predata and postdata from local SRTS 
programs on the number of children walking and bicycling to school and 
parental attitudes toward these transportation modes; and: 

* developing draft strategies to further best practices, such as 
sharing operational successes, profiling creative SRTS approaches to 
inspire and advance SRTS programs nationwide, and providing standards 
for SRTS programs to ensure that funds are spent wisely. 

Finally, the SRTS program has had more limited success in addressing 
the principles and criteria related to performance accountability. As 
discussed earlier in this report, FHWA encourages states to evaluate 
their SRTS program and the clearinghouse has developed some 
standardized data collection instruments to help collect basic 
information on program participants, but FHWA has not developed a 
comprehensive plan for evaluating SRTS program outcomes. 

Conclusions: 

FHWA has made considerable progress in implementing the SRTS program. 
It has established the National Center for Safe Routes to School and 
National Safe Routes to School Task Force and successfully applied some 
criteria for addressing 21st Century Challenges. However, FHWA lacks a 
comprehensive plan for measuring the results of the program. Until a 
comprehensive plan is in place, it will be difficult to measure both 
national and local program outcomes and hold grantees accountable for 
their use of program funds. Developing these procedures is important as 
states complete more funding cycles and local grant recipients 
implement more SRTS activities. In addition, because some states have 
put SRTS program evaluations in place, FHWA will need to determine 
whether and how to incorporate these state evaluations into its overall 
evaluation effort. More importantly, as Congress prepares for the 
reauthorization of the federal surface transportation programs, 
comprehensive performance data will be critical in determining the 
relative contributions of the SRTS program. Furthermore, given that the 
SRTS program has expanded the federal transportation role into new 
areas, including childhood obesity and inactivity and traffic and 
environmental problems in the vicinity of schools, it will be important 
for FHWA and the states to try to evaluate whether the SRTS program has 
a positive impact in those areas. The clearinghouse has made an initial 
positive effort to talk with key stakeholders, including CDC and EPA, 
about appropriate measures for health and environmental outcomes, but 
additional work is needed to determine the feasibility of developing 
these outcome measures. For example, it would be beneficial to 
formalize and enhance this emerging collaboration among the three 
federal agencies--DOT, CDC, and EPA--that have a common interest in 
SRTS outcomes. This collaboration may occur by forming a coordinating 
group that meets regularly, so that they can effectively work together 
to address the challenge of developing health and environmental outcome 
measures for the SRTS program. Finally, the SRTS program is unusual in 
that SAFETEA-LU sets the federal share of the cost of a SRTS project or 
activity at 100 percent, while most federal funds for federal-aid 
highway projects must be matched by funds from other state or local 
sources. Although some SRTS activities might be funded from multiple 
federal and other sources, the lack of a matching requirement may limit 
the program's ability to ensure that states use SRTS funds to 
supplement, rather than replace, state and local spending on similar 
programs. The national SRTS task force is considering including a 
recommendation in its forthcoming report to allow matching funds for 
infrastructure projects to leverage state and local spending, while 
protecting the ability of low-income areas to participate in the 
program. 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

To enhance the oversight of the SRTS program, we recommend that the 
Secretary of Transportation direct the Administrator, FHWA, to take the 
following two actions: 

* Develop a comprehensive plan to monitor and evaluate the program. The 
plan should include the following three components: 

- an assessment of the extent to which states are currently evaluating 
the progress of their SRTS programs, and a determination of whether and 
how those state evaluations can be incorporated into FHWA's overall 
evaluation of the SRTS program; 

- a requirement that states collect data relevant for evaluating the 
SRTS program--which should be specified by FHWA--and that the required 
data be listed in grant agreements between the states and grantees; 

- reporting requirements and timeframes for FHWA's evaluation results; 
and: 

* Formalize collaborative efforts with the clearinghouse, CDC, and EPA 
to explore the feasibility of developing health and environmental 
outcome measures. 

Matter for Congressional Consideration: 

To improve the likelihood that federal investment in the SRTS program 
will be used to supplement, rather than replace, state or local 
spending on similar activities, Congress should consider requiring a 
state or local match for the program, while possibly including 
provisions that would protect low-income communities from being at a 
disadvantage when competing for SRTS funds. 

Agency Comments: 

We provided a draft of this report to DOT for review and comment prior 
to finalizing the report. DOT generally agreed with the information and 
findings in the report and said that they are considering our 
recommendations. DOT noted that they thought it might be premature for 
the agency to add evaluation requirements at this time as part of a 
comprehensive plan. Nevertheless, we believe that since the SRTS 
program was established nearly 3 years ago, this is an appropriate time 
for DOT to develop a comprehensive evaluation plan. DOT also provided 
technical comments, which we incorporated, as appropriate. 

We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional 
committees and to the Secretary of Transportation. We will also make 
copies available to others upon request. In addition, this report will 
be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov]. 

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please 
contact me at (202) 512-2834 or siggerudk@gao.gov. Contact points for 
our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found 
on the last page of this report. GAO staff that made key contributions 
to this report are listed in appendix III. 

Sincerely yours, 

Signed by: 

Katherine Siggerud: 

Managing Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues: 

[End of section] 

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology: 

To gather information related to all three objectives, we reviewed the 
Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A 
Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), the legislative history of the federal 
Safe Routes to School (SRTS) program, and the Federal Highway 
Administration's (FHWA) SRTS program guidance. We also conducted a 
literature review to identify key health, safety, and environmental 
concerns the program is intended to address, including the relative 
risks of the different options to transport kids to and from school. 

To identify the steps FHWA and states have taken to implement the SRTS 
program, we reviewed documentation describing SRTS implementation 
activities taking place nationwide, including the hiring status of the 
program coordinator, number of application cycle completed, and 
announced spending amounts for specific local and statewide SRTS 
projects. These documents included program tracking briefs from the 
clearinghouse which summarize key attributes from all programs, such as 
statewide spending and the number of schools participating in SRTS 
programs. In addition, we used data from FHWA on SRTS funding 
apportionments and obligations. To assess the reliability of the data 
in the tracking reports from the clearinghouse and FHWA's data on SRTS 
funding apportionments and obligations, we reviewed related 
documentation and interviewed knowledgeable agency officials about the 
quality of the data. As a result, we determined the data to be 
sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report. We also 
interviewed officials from FHWA, the clearinghouse, the national task 
force, and numerous national stakeholders familiar with health, safety, 
and environmental concerns, and SRTS program design and program 
implementation. These stakeholders were identified from a variety of 
sources, including the national task force membership list, 
contributors to SRTS program guidance, and a snowball sample approach 
in which key individuals were identified by those knowledgeable about 
SRTS. We also collected in-depth information from three states 
(California, Florida, and South Dakota) and the District of Columbia to 
obtain their views on the program's design, implementation, challenges, 
and results to date as applicable. To select states, we considered the 
coordinator status, status of application cycles, the number of local 
SRTS projects funded as of June 2007, and whether the state was 
previously involved in SRTS projects or related efforts. For balance, 
we selected two states with permanent coordinators that had completed 
at least one application cycle, funded local projects, previously been 
involved in SRTS projects or related activities, and had urban and 
rural grant recipients that we could interview in a single site visit 
and two other states that did not have permanent coordinators, had not 
completed an application cycle as of June 2007, and had not funded 
local projects. During these site visits,[Footnote 37] we interviewed 
FHWA division officials, state officials and local grant recipients, 
and state and local level stakeholders. We also obtained pertinent 
documentation such as copies of state applications and guidelines. 

To assess the extent to which FHWA and states have evaluated the 
results of the SRTS program, we reviewed GAO standards for internal 
controls and performance evaluation to compare against FHWA's plans for 
monitoring program performance and measuring outcomes. In addition, we 
examined FHWA's evaluation methodology, including information from 
FHWA's program guidance, resources developed by the clearinghouse, and 
recommendations provided in the draft report from the national task 
force. These activities were supplemented by interviews with the FHWA 
Program Manager, the clearinghouse, and national stakeholders to garner 
more detailed information about evaluation efforts at the national 
level. As part of the site visits described above, we also identified 
evaluation plans at the state and local levels. 

Lastly, to address the third objective regarding how the SRTS program 
relates to other surface transportation programs and some 
considerations for reauthorization, we spoke with agency officials and 
stakeholders described above and reviewed pertinent documentation to 
determine the extent to which the SRTS program is coordinated with 
other transportation programs that can potentially provide funding for 
SRTS activities. We also reviewed prior GAO reports on the economic 
aspects of federal matching requirements and GAO's body of work on 21st 
Century Challenges to identify criteria and principles for re-examining 
government transportation programs, including the SRTS program. We 
compared the practices of the SRTS program to some of these criteria 
and principles. Finally, we reviewed publicly available reports and 
other documents of various transportation groups to identify a range of 
views on national surface transportation priorities and the types of 
federal investments that best address those priorities. 

We performed our review from August 2007 to July 2008 in accordance 
with generally accepted governmental auditing standards. Those 
standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that 
the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 
conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

[End of section] 

Appendix II SRTS Apportionments, by Fiscal Year: 

Table 8:  

Dollars in millions. 

State: Alabama; 
Actual 2005: $1,000,000; 
Actual 2006[A]: $1,313,659; 
Actual 2007: $1,767,375; 
Actual 2008: $2,199,717; 
Projected 2009[B]: $2,751,297; 
Total: $9,032,048. 

State: Alaska; 
Actual 2005: 1,000,000; 
Actual 2006[A]: 990,000; 
Actual 2007: 1,000,000; 
Actual 2008: 1,000,000; 
Projected 2009[B]: 1,000,000; 
Total: 4,990,000. 

State: Arizona; 
Actual 2005: 1,000,000; 
Actual 2006[A]: 1,557,644; 
Actual 2007: 2,228,590; 
Actual 2008: 2,896,828; 
Projected 2009[B]: 3,623,208; 
Total: 11,306,270. 

State: Arkansas; 
Actual 2005: 1,000,000; 
Actual 2006[A]: 990,000; 
Actual 2007: 1,027,338; 
Actual 2008: 1,297,202; 
Projected 2009[B]: 1,622,475; 
Total: 5,937,015. 

State: California; 
Actual 2005: 1,000,000; 
Actual 2006[A]: 11,039,310; 
Actual 2007: 14,832,295; 
Actual 2008: 18,066,131; 
Projected 2009[B]: 22,596,218; 
Total: 67,533,954. 

State: Colorado; 
Actual 2005: 1,000,000; 
Actual 2006[A]: 1,254,403; 
Actual 2007: 1,679,463; 
Actual 2008: 2,119,802; 
Projected 2009[B]: 2,651,342; 
Total: 8,705,010. 

State: Connecticut; 
Actual 2005: 1,000,000; 
Actual 2006[A]: 998,325; 
Actual 2007: 1,332,573; 
Actual 2008: 1,617,319; 
Projected 2009[B]: 2,022,862; 
Total: 6,971,079. 

State: Delaware; 
Actual 2005: 1,000,000; 
Actual 2006[A]: 990,000; 
Actual 2007: 1,000,000; 
Actual 2008: 1,000,000; 
Projected 2009[B]: 1,000,000; 
Total: 4,990,000. 

State: District of Columbia; 
Actual 2005: 1,000,000; 
Actual 2006[A]: 990,000; 
Actual 2007: 1,000,000; 
Actual 2008: 1,000,000; 
Projected 2009[B]: 1,000,000; 
Total: 4,990,000. 

State: Florida; 
Actual 2005: 1,000,000; 
Actual 2006[A]: 4,494,278; 
Actual 2007: 6,133,717; 
Actual 2008: 7,763,038; 
Projected 2009[B]: 9,709,622; 
Total: 29,100,655. 

State: Georgia; 
Actual 2005: 1,000,000; 
Actual 2006[A]: 2,578,305; 
Actual 2007: 3,499,747; 
Actual 2008: 4,487,050; 
Projected 2009[B]: 5,612,178; 
Total: 17,177,280. 

State: Hawaii; 
Actual 2005: 1,000,000; 
Actual 2006[A]: 990,000; 
Actual 2007: 1,000,000; 
Actual 2008: 1,000,000; 
Projected 2009[B]: 1,000,000; 
Total: 4,990,000. 

State: Idaho; 
Actual 2005: 1,000,000; 
Actual 2006[A]: 990,000; 
Actual 2007: 1,000,000; 
Actual 2008: 1,000,000; 
Projected 2009[B]: 1,000,000; 
Total: 4,990,000. 

State: Illinois; 
Actual 2005: 1,000,000; 
Actual 2006[A]: 3,729,568; 
Actual 2007: 4,934,826; 
Actual 2008: 6,049,154; 
Projected 2009[B]: 7,565,980; 
Total: 23,279,528. 

State: Indiana; 
Actual 2005: 1,000,000; 
Actual 2006[A]: 1,798,399; 
Actual 2007: 2,408,772; 
Actual 2008: 2,994,241; 
Projected 2009[B]: 3,745,048; 
Total: 11,946,460. 

State: Iowa; 
Actual 2005: 1,000,000; 
Actual 2006[A]: 990,000; 
Actual 2007: 1,084,775; 
Actual 2008: 1,339,951; 
Projected 2009[B]: 1,675,945; 
Total: 6,090,671. 

State: Kansas; 
Actual 2005: 1,000,000; 
Actual 2006[A]: 990,000; 
Actual 2007: 1,064,595; 
Actual 2008: 1,313,282; 
Projected 2009[B]: 1,642,587; 
Total: 6,010,464. 

State: Kentucky; 
Actual 2005: 1,000,000; 
Actual 2006[A]: 1,127,212; 
Actual 2007: 1,512,032; 
Actual 2008: 1,885,289; 
Projected 2009[B]: 2,358,026; 
Total: 7,882,559. 

State: Louisiana; 
Actual 2005: 1,000,000; 
Actual 2006[A]: 1,404,776; 
Actual 2007: 1,864,469; 
Actual 2008: 2,106,118; 
Projected 2009[B]: 2,634,228; 
Total: 9,009,591. 

State: Maine; 
Actual 2005: 1,000,000; 
Actual 2006[A]: 990,000; 
Actual 2007: 1,000,000; 
Actual 2008: 1,000,000; 
Projected 2009[B]: 1,000,000; 
Total: 4,990,000. 

State: Maryland; 
Actual 2005: 1,000,000; 
Actual 2006[A]: 1,576,594; 
Actual 2007: 2,092,753; 
Actual 2008: 2,514,307; 
Projected 2009[B]: 3,144,771; 
Total: 10,328,425. 

State: Massachusetts; 
Actual 2005: 1,000,000; 
Actual 2006[A]: 1,752,904; 
Actual 2007: 2,293,605; 
Actual 2008: 2,771,492; 
Projected 2009[B]: 3,466,445; 
Total: 11,284,446. 

State: Michigan; 
Actual 2005: 1,000,000; 
Actual 2006[A]: 3,009,800; 
Actual 2007: 4,005,253; 
Actual 2008: 4,811,697; 
Projected 2009[B]: 6,018,231; 
Total: 18,844,981. 

State: Minnesota; 
Actual 2005: 1,000,000; 
Actual 2006[A]: 1,441,060; 
Actual 2007: 1,897,225; 
Actual 2008: 2,324,104; 
Projected 2009[B]: 2,906,874; 
Total: 9,569,263. 

State: Mississippi; 
Actual 2005: 1,000,000; 
Actual 2006[A]: 990,000; 
Actual 2007: 1,196,855; 
Actual 2008: 1,471,512; 
Projected 2009[B]: 1,840,494; 
Total: 6,498,861. 

State: Missouri; 
Actual 2005: 1,000,000; 
Actual 2006[A]: 1,620,703; 
Actual 2007: 2,146,792; 
Actual 2008: 2,646,419; 
Projected 2009[B]: 3,310,009; 
Total: 10,723,923. 

State: Montana; 
Actual 2005: 1,000,000; 
Actual 2006[A]: 990,000; 
Actual 2007: 1,000,000; 
Actual 2008: 1,000,000; 
Projected 2009[B]: 1,000,000; 
Total: 4,990,000. 

State: Nebraska; 
Actual 2005: 1,000,000; 
Actual 2006[A]: 990,000; 
Actual 2007: 1,000,000; 
Actual 2008: 1,000,000; 
Projected 2009[B]: 1,017,718; 
Total: 5,007,718. 

State: Nevada; 
Actual 2005: 1,000,000; 
Actual 2006[A]: 990,000; 
Actual 2007: 1,000,000; 
Actual 2008: 1,152,500; 
Projected 2009[B]: 1,441,489; 
Total: 5,583,989. 

State: New Hampshire; 
Actual 2005: 1,000,000; 
Actual 2006[A]: 990,000; 
Actual 2007: 1,000,000; 
Actual 2008: 1,000,000; 
Projected 2009[B]: 1,000,000; 
Total: 4,990,000. 

State: New Jersey; 
Actual 2005: 1,000,000; 
Actual 2006[A]: 2,399,056; 
Actual 2007: 3,330,370; 
Actual 2008: 4,087,785; 
Projected 2009[B]: 5,112,798; 
Total: 15,930,009. 

State: New Mexico; 
Actual 2005: 1,000,000; 
Actual 2006[A]: 990,000; 
Actual 2007: 1,000,000; 
Actual 2008: 1,000,000; 
Projected 2009[B]: 1,134,000; 
Total: 5,124,000. 

State: New York; 
Actual 2005: 1,000,000; 
Actual 2006[A]: 5,114,558; 
Actual 2007: 6,894,554; 
Actual 2008: 8,280,423; 
Projected 2009[B]: 10,356,742; 
Total: 31,646,277. 

State: North Carolina; 
Actual 2005: 1,000,000; 
Actual 2006[A]: 2,333,556; 
Actual 2007: 3,175,243; 
Actual 2008: 4,050,525; 
Projected 2009[B]: 5,066,196; 
Total: 15,625,520. 

State: North Dakota; 
Actual 2005: 1,000,000; 
Actual 2006[A]: 990,000; 
Actual 2007: 1,000,000; 
Actual 2008: 1,000,000; 
Projected 2009[B]: 1,000,000; 
Total: 4,990,000. 

State: Ohio; 
Actual 2005: 1,000,000; 
Actual 2006[A]: 3,295,093; 
Actual 2007: 4,339,214; 
Actual 2008: 5,299,892; 
Projected 2009[B]: 6,628,841; 
Total: 20,563,040. 

State: Oklahoma; 
Actual 2005: 1,000,000; 
Actual 2006[A]: 1,010,647; 
Actual 2007: 1,332,691; 
Actual 2008: 1,664,295; 
Projected 2009[B]: 2,081,617; 
Total: 7,089,250. 

State: Oregon; 
Actual 2005: 1,000,000; 
Actual 2006[A]: 990,000; 
Actual 2007: 1,242,468; 
Actual 2008: 1,543,621; 
Projected 2009[B]: 1,930,684; 
Total: 6,706,773. 

State: Pennsylvania; 
Actual 2005: 1,000,000; 
Actual 2006[A]: 3,345,128; 
Actual 2007: 4,430,549; 
Actual 2008: 5,436,148; 
Projected 2009[B]: 6,799,263; 
Total: 21,011,088. 

State: Rhode Island; 
Actual 2005: 1,000,000; 
Actual 2006[A]: 990,000; 
Actual 2007: 1,000,000; 
Actual 2008: 1,000,000; 
Projected 2009[B]: 1,000,000; 
Total: 4,990,000. 

State: South Carolina; 
Actual 2005: 1,000,000; 
Actual 2006[A]: 1,186,047; 
Actual 2007: 1,584,924; 
Actual 2008: 1,948,124; 
Projected 2009[B]: 2,436,616; 
Total: 8,155,711. 

State: South Dakota; 
Actual 2005: 1,000,000; 
Actual 2006[A]: 990,000; 
Actual 2007: 1,000,000; 
Actual 2008: 1,000,000; 
Projected 2009[B]: 1,000,000; 
Total: 4,990,000. 

State: Tennessee; 
Actual 2005: 1,000,000; 
Actual 2006[A]: 1,596,222; 
Actual 2007: 2,158,074; 
Actual 2008: 2,700,824; 
Projected 2009[B]: 3,378,056; 
Total: 10,833,176. 

State: Texas; 
Actual 2005: 1,000,000; 
Actual 2006[A]: 7,009,094; 
Actual 2007: 9,408,067; 
Actual 2008: 12,114,991; 
Projected 2009[B]: 15,152,828; 
Total: 44,684,980. 

State: Utah; 
Actual 2005: 1,000,000; 
Actual 2006[A]: 990,000; 
Actual 2007: 1,063,690; 
Actual 2008: 1,365,995; 
Projected 2009[B]: 1,708,519; 
Total: 6,128,204. 

State: Vermont; 
Actual 2005: 1,000,000; 
Actual 2006[A]: 990,000; 
Actual 2007: 1,000,000; 
Actual 2008: 1,000,000; 
Projected 2009[B]: 1,000,000; 
Total: 4,990,000. 

State: Virginia; 
Actual 2005: 1,000,000; 
Actual 2006[A]: 2,024,830; 
Actual 2007: 2,717,436; 
Actual 2008: 3,370,807; 
Projected 2009[B]: 4,216,038; 
Total: 13,329,111. 

State: Washington; 
Actual 2005: 1,000,000; 
Actual 2006[A]: 1,694,515; 
Actual 2007: 2,271,034; 
Actual 2008: 2,809,776; 
Projected 2009[B]: 3,514,328; 
Total: 11,289,653. 

State: West Virginia; 
Actual 2005: 1,000,000; 
Actual 2006[A]: 990,000; 
Actual 2007: 1,000,000; 
Actual 2008: 1,000,000; 
Projected 2009[B]: 1,000,000; 
Total: 4,990,000. 

State: Wisconsin; 
Actual 2005: 1,000,000; 
Actual 2006[A]: 1,554,314; 
Actual 2007: 2,048,636; 
Actual 2008: 2,499,641; 
Projected 2009[B]: 3,126,427; 
Total: 10,229,018. 

State: Wyoming; 
Actual 2005: 1,000,000; 
Actual 2006[A]: 990,000; 
Actual 2007: 1,000,000; 
Actual 2008: 1,000,000; 
Projected 2009[B]: 1,000,000; 
Total: 4,990,000. 

State: All States; 
Actual 2005: 51,000,000; 
Actual 2006[A]: 96,030,000; 
Actual 2007: 122,000,000; 
Actual 2008: 147,000,000; 
Projected 2009[B]: 180,000,000; 
Total: 596,030,000. 

State: FHWA Admin Cost; 
Actual 2005: 3,000,000; 
Actual 2006[A]: 2,970,000; 
Actual 2007: 3,000,000; 
Actual 2008: 3,000,000; 
Projected 2009[B]: 3,000,000; 
Total: 14,970,000. 

Total; 
Actual 2005: $54,000,000; 
Actual 2006[A]: $99,000,000; 
Actual 2007: $125,000,000; 
Actual 2008: $150,000,000; 
Projected 2009[B]: $183,000,000; 
Total: $611,000,000. 

Source: FHWA. 

[A] Due to a 1 percent across-the-board rescission of fiscal year 2006 
funds, some allocations were less than $1 million. 

[B] The apportionment for fiscal year 2009 was projected using the 
fiscal year 2008 factors. The official apportionment for fiscal year 
2009 will be based on the latest available data; consequently, the 
actual apportionment for fiscal year 2009 may differ from the estimate 
presented here. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contact: 

Katherine Siggerud, (202) 512-2834 or siggerudk@gao.gov: 

Staff Acknowledgments: 

In addition to the contact named above, Rita Grieco (Assistant 
Director) Derrick Collins, Colin Fallon, Bert Japikse, Brandon Wheeler, 
and Tracy Williams made key contributions to this report. 

[End of section] 

Footnotes: 

[1] FHWA generally administers its programs through its headquarters in 
Washington, D.C., and division offices located in every state, the 
District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. FHWA delegates much of its 
decision-making, program implementation, and oversight to those 
offices. 

[2] Infrastructure projects generally refer to construction projects 
while noninfrastructure projects generally refer to behavioral 
activities to encourage walking and biking to school (such as public 
awareness campaigns and student sessions on bicycle and pedestrian 
safety). 

[3] The states may provide SRTS funding to state, local, and regional 
agencies, including nonprofit organizations. 

[4] All references to "states" in this report include the District of 
Columbia. 

[5] FHWA distributes SRTS funding through annual apportionments 
established by the statutory formula in SAFETEA-LU. Once FHWA has 
apportioned SRTS funds, they are available to be awarded by states. 
After the states have established project agreements with their 
grantees, the states may obligate the funds in accordance with each 
state's approved transportation improvement program. 

[6] Amounts awarded by states include the amounts that state SRTS 
programs have announced they will spend on specific local SRTS projects 
or programs. 

[7] We conducted the interviews in California, Florida, and the 
District of Columbia in person and the interviews in South Dakota by 
telephone. 

[8] Although the SRTS is the first such federal transportation program, 
NHTSA previously funded two pilot SRTS projects in August 2000 in Marin 
County, Calif., and Boston, Mass. 

[9] GAO, Federal Grants: Design Improvements Could Help Federal 
Resources Go Further, GAO/AIMD-97-7 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 18, 1996). 

[10] For example, see GAO, 21st Century Challenges: Reexamining the 
Base of the Federal Government, GAO-05-325SP (Washington, D.C.: 
February 2005). GAO, Surface Transportation: Restructured Federal 
Approach Needed for More Focused, Performance-Based, and Sustainable 
Programs, GAO-08-400 (Washington D.C.: March 6, 2008). 

[11] See, for example, Office of the Surgeon General, The Surgeon 
General's Call to Action to Prevent and Decrease Overweight and Obesity 
2001 (Washington, D.C., 2001) and Salinsky et al., Obesity in America: 
A Growing Threat, (Washington, D.C., National Health Policy Forum, July 
2003). 

[12] GAO, Childhood Obesity: Most Experts Identified Physical Activity 
and the Use of Best Practices as Key to Successful Programs, GAO-06-
127R (Washington D.C.: Oct. 7, 2005). 

[13] Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration, Countermeasures That Work: A Highway Safety 
Countermeasure Guide for State Highway Safety Offices, (Washington, 
D.C., 2007). 

[14] Peter L. Jacobsen, "Safety in Numbers: More Walkers and 
Bicyclists, Safer Walking and Bicycling," Injury Prevention (September 
2003). 

[15] Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, 
Environmental Benefits of Bicycling and Walking: National Bicycling and 
Walking Study, Case Study 15 (January 1993). 

[16] Michael S. Freidman, et. al., "Impacts of Changes in 
Transportation and Commuting Behavior During the 1996 Summer Olympic 
Games in Atlanta on Air Quality and Childhood Asthma," Journal of the 
American Medical Association (JAMA), vol. 285 (February 2001), pp. 897- 
905. 

[17] FHWA deducts up to $3 million per year for administrative expenses 
to carry out the program. 

[18] Federal grant programs for highway infrastructure are collectively 
known as the Federal-Aid Highway Program. 

[19] While SRTS projects are subject to applicable title 23 
requirements as required by SAFETEA-LU, FHWA officials noted that, 
since 1996, they have allowed other types of low cost federal-aid 
highway projects to use state-approved procurement procedures for 
projects outside the right-of-way of a federal-aid highway. 

[20] The Davis Bacon Act requires that laborers and mechanics employed 
on construction work performed on projects must be paid wages at rates 
not less than those prevailing on the same type of work on similar 
construction in the immediate locality as determined by the Department 
of Labor. 

[21] GAO-05-325SP. 

[22] This amount includes funding for two base years, three 1-year 
options, and modifications made in July 2006, November 2007, and 
February 2008. 

[23] According to FHWA officials, it conducted an extensive outreach 
effort in preparing the guidance by soliciting input from multiple 
program stakeholders including national bicycle and pedestrian advocacy 
organizations, a review team of officials from state DOTs, an FHWA 
field review team, and NHTSA. 

[24] Transportation projects proposed for funding under title 23, 
including recipients of SRTS funds, must be programmed in a 
metropolitan planning organization's Transportation Improvement program 
and the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program. A transportation 
improvement program is a prioritized listing of transportation projects 
covering a period of 4 years that is developed and formally adopted by 
a metropolitan planning organization as part of its planning process. A 
statewide transportation improvement program is a statewide prioritized 
listing of transportation projects covering a period of 4 years. 

[25] GAO, Program Evaluation: Strategies for Assessing How Information 
Dissemination Contributes to Agency Goals, GAO-02-923 (Washington D.C.: 
Sept. 30, 2002). 

[26] FHWA addressed a concern of the national partnership when it 
worked to include student travel data in the 2008 Household Travel 
Survey. The survey is a DOT effort sponsored by the Bureau of 
Transportation Statistics and FHWA to collect data on both long- 
distance and local travel. 

[27] GAO-08-400. 

[28] GAO, Grants Management: Enhancing Performance Accountability 
Provisions Could Lead to Better Results, GAO-06-1046 (Washington D.C.: 
Sept. 29, 2006). 

[29] Only 10 schools were reviewed for the 2003 mobility study; the 
2007 study used a representative sample of 125 of the 570 projects that 
received SR2S funding in the first three years of the program. Boarnet, 
et. al., Safe Routes to School, Volume1: Study Overview and Summary of 
Results, a report to the legislature (December 2003). Orenstein, et. 
al., Safe Routes to School Safety and Mobility Analysis, a report to 
the California legislature (University of California Berkley Traffic 
Safety Center, January 2007). 

[30] SAFETEA-LU authorized $612 million for the SRTS program for fiscal 
years 2005 through 2009, an amount that constitutes less than 1 percent 
of the $193 billion authorized for all highway programs during the same 
4-year period under the legislation. 

[31] GAO-08-400. 

[32] GAO/AIMD-97-7. 

[33] GAO, Federal-Aid Highways: Trends, Effect on State Spending, and 
Options for Future Program Design, GAO-04-802 (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 
31, 2004). 

[34] GAO-08-400. 

[35] GAO-08-400. 

[36] For example, see GAO-05-325SP. 

[37] We conducted the interviews in California, Florida, and the 
District of Columbia in person and the interviews in South Dakota by 
telephone. 

GAO's Mission: 

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting 
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance 
and accountability of the federal government for the American people. 
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding 
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core 
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.  

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each 
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and 
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly 
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] 
and select "E-mail Updates."  

Order by Mail or Phone: 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent 
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. 
Orders should be sent to:  

U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room LM: 
Washington, D.C. 20548:  

To order by Phone: 
Voice: (202) 512-6000: 
TDD: (202) 512-2537: 
Fax: (202) 512-6061:  

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:  

Contact:  

Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]: 
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov: 
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:  

Congressional Relations:  

Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4400: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7125: 
Washington, D.C. 20548:  

Public Affairs: 

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4800: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7149: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: